Philosophy of Science Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1000 words

Philosophy of Science - Essay Example Karl Popper on the other hand was the totalitarian and unadventurous proponent of positivism. Karl and Popper were the contemporaries and criticized each other’s work. The comparison on the philosophies of Kuhn and Popper following attributes are taken into consideration: 1. Differentiation between science and non science Popper opined that science is a method of trial and error. It is a method of assumption and refusal. Science is always accompanied by the group of scholars who check and criticize each other. The foundation of science is its rationality. The openness to criticism should be converted into the willingness of scientists to falsify their theory. Kuhn on the other hand differentiated science and non science through paradigms. Science takes place where there is a major paradigm and non science appears due to lack of dominant paradigm. Thus Kuhn talks about infantile science without a dominant paradigm and a normal science or matured science with a dominant paradigm . He took paradigm as a basic accomplishment which includes both theory and a very good application to the results of observations and experiments. It is very important to keep in mind that though Kuhn differentiated between science and non science through paradigms his differentiation was never based on objectivity. Karl Popper was against the confinement of science within faith and doctrine. Science follows the methods faithfully and these methods are objective. For Popper criticism is a necessary aspect for the scientific method of objectivity. The foundation of scientific rationality lies on the modernist project of reason, doubt, and criticism. To build this rationality science must be open to criticism and adapt critical attitude. Scientific knowledge according to him is snowballing. It is because of the positive approach of the scientists to go through falsification and they should be open to the criticism. According to Kuhn preconception and resistance seem to be the rule ra ther than the exception. He strongly believes that dogma is an essential part in mature science as the scientific paradigm is an open-ended achievement. It is necessary for the scientists to be assertive in their beliefs in paradigm. Then only they can further ensue to the puzzle solving task. 2. Criticism, Dogmatism and Faith Criticism is mandatory to science according to Popper whereas dogma is mandatory in mature science. Popper believes that faith in science is important one and one should stick on to the scientific methods. Kuhn believes that faith should be in scientific paradigm. Popper opines strongly that objectivity in science lies in scientific method. This opinion made Popper to use the concept of provisional knowledge. Scientific methods are enough to evaluate the merits of scientific theories because, as mentioned above objectivity lies in scientific method. This scientific method is paradigmatic for Kuhn. Objectivity is only feasible within the paradigm. Kuhn says tha t this scientific method is not able to evaluate the merits of scientific theories in an objective manner because scientific paradigms occur through extra-scientific factors. Scientific Revolution v/s Scientific progress Popper thinks that scientific progress happens through falsification. After going through falsification, the theory either stands true, or it is taken for granted as a provisional knowl